(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.11.25 2019노4578 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.11.25 2019노4578

업무상횡령

Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

J. 1 of the lower court’s applicants for compensation.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant’s embezzlement of the victims’ pension premiums, health and long-term care insurance premiums exceeding KRW 34 million, and the Defendant has a number of fines due to a violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc. is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of various circumstances, such as the confession and reflection of the defendant, the defendant repaid part of the amount of damage to the victims in the trial, and the victim V did not want the punishment of the defendant under the agreement with the victim V, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below is unreasonable.

3. In a case where the defendant, ex officio, files an appeal against conviction regarding the part of the compensation order among the judgment below, the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the defendant's case pursuant to Article 33 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. even if the defendant does not object to the compensation order, the part of

According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the same Act, if the existence or scope of the liability of the accused is not clear, no compensation order shall be issued, and in such cases, the application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the same Act.

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the defendant paid all or part of the amount of damage to the applicant for compensation from among the applicants for compensation in the court below's trial, so it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation because the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is not clear.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the compensation order part against the above applicant cannot be maintained as it is.

4. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is reasonable.

참조조문

-근로기준법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제33조 제1항

-형사소송법 제364조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2021.04.29 2020노4540

-전주지방법원 2020.06.04 2019노1672

-서울북부지방법원 2020.04.10 2019노2316

-전주지방법원 2020.08.25 2020노461

-수원지방법원 2020.08.10 2019노1227